19th Century "anatomical skill"

[lynn cates]

looking

Hello Karl. Thanks.

I'll see if I can find a copy. Perhaps someone has a spare copy?

Cheers.
LC

[Karl]

Hello (again) Karl. Thanks.

Actually, that is only a small reason.

I have a piece in Don Souden's "New Independent Review." It is "Possibly the Work of an Imitator." (Taken, obviously, from Baxter's words at his summation of the Stride inquest.)

Perhaps, you can get hold of this and you'll see what I'm on about? I wish I could give a short version, but it would not do justice to the many disparities in her case.

Cheers.
LC

Would you know where I could get a hold of this issue? It is to be found in issue #4, apparently, but the link...

http://newindependentreview.com/

...can only be accessed via the web-archive, and even then the issues themselves are not available for perusal.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is nothing lost at all and no side stepping, quite the contrary. I have made it quite clear for all to understand the flaws in the old accepted theory, and I have made just as clear the facts, which go to show there is another plausible explanation.

I still cannot see how you can keep suggesting that an expert can remove a uterus in 3.30 mins, but someone less trained or with no training could do it in less time, that is illogical.

You cannot dismiss Dr Browns experiment, it is scientific in nature. I am sure that if he had tried it himself even he would have taken longer, or even given the task to a student who would have taken longer. So despite what you say that 3.30 mins is one of the parameters to work from when looking at the time the killer would have needed, and of course we do not know what conditions the experiment was conducted under. If it was in daylight, then we must assume had it been in the dark it would have taken the expert longer. Dr Phillips time of 15 mins for him to do all that was done to Chapman is relevant now.

What you also have to accept which you seem to not want to do when considering the likelihood that the organs were taken at the mortuary is that organs were available from mortuaries to medical personnel for medical research.

Now as far you sarcastic question you keep asking regarding what research these organs would be required for the stock answer again is "medical research" that simply could involve them being placed in specimen jars and simply shown to students studying anatomy.

You ask why would someone take the organs unlawfully. Organs had to be paid for. I am sure that if someone from the medical profession was tasked with going to the mortuary to purchase organs, and saw an opportunity of obtaining organs and saving that money, then that could be an answer. So to that end speed in the removal would be of the essence, hence a slip of the knife when removing the uterus.

Chapmans body was even left outside the mortuary for a time. So you cannot dismiss my observations.

As to Dr Browns 5 mins I have always for several years now suggested that Dr Browns 5 mins was not enough time to do all that the killer is supposed to have done. The Star newspaper report has only just come to my notice which shows that the 5 mins he referred to which was previously taken by all, me included to encompass the whole scenario is now limited to the time it would take to carry out the murder and mutilations, and not to include the removal of the organs in that 5 mins. So I hope this now clarifies my position.

As to Dr Sequeira he says 3 mins, surely his answer must also reflect simply the murder and mutilations. It would be humanly impossible for anyone medically trained or otherwise to do all of that in three minutes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The evidence never lies, but it doesn't always tell the truth

[Elamarna]

In another context. The context of the murder.

Regards, Pierre

I suspected that was what you meant,

steve

[Pierre]

in the mortuary circumstances Pierre? or in another context?

Steve

In another context. The context of the murder.

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

QUOTE=Elamarna;386380



I know why someone would take the organs, against the law, for no financial gain.

Regards, Pierre

in the mortuary circumstances Pierre? or in another context?

Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Elamarna;386380

Neither have you given an explanation why someone would take the organs, against the law, for no financial gain.

I know why someone would take the organs, against the law, for no financial gain.

Regards, Pierre

[lynn cates]

imitator

Hello (again) Karl. Thanks.

Actually, that is only a small reason.

I have a piece in Don Souden's "New Independent Review." It is "Possibly the Work of an Imitator." (Taken, obviously, from Baxter's words at his summation of the Stride inquest.)

Perhaps, you can get hold of this and you'll see what I'm on about? I wish I could give a short version, but it would not do justice to the many disparities in her case.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

common sense

Hello Karl.

"It's not like mutilations are so rare that only one person could possibly perpetrate them all."

Shhh. You'll confuse a lot of people with your common sense.

Cheers.
LC

[Elamarna]

The Bromley quotes are from his 1st article and are direct quotes

Thank you for making it clear.
I wondered as you had not indicated they were, which should always be done to avoid confusion..

Very balanced to those who are not blinkered

Please I am splitting my sides with laughter here, do you actually believe what you are writing?

My time window was in place long before you mentioned Bromley`s and has not changed. I am now merely pointing out the flaws in his and your 10 minute window, and the 6.49 mins in Bromleys analysis on this particular scenario

Now that is very interesting


In post # 82 on 23/06/16

So looking again at the times, and I keep going back to these times, the killer would not have had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done. Where does the minimum of 7 minutes for organ removal required by a skilled surgeon come from? Any amateur would take even longer. You or anyone else cannot say the organs were removed in much less time because it would not be humanly possible based on Dr Browns timed experiment and the time Dr Phillips stated it would take him to remove the organs from Chapman.

Clearly you were saying last Thursday that it took 7 minutes to carry out the full procedure.



on the 26/06/16 post #105

So by the calculation 7 mins is the absolute minimum an expert would need, but I suspect the killer was no expert simply after organs.

Again on Sunday you are saying 7 minutes, no indication of any longer time being required.


However once the discussion got onto The article by Gavin Bromley you went quieter.


Then yesterday post #124

I suggest this interview could have taken place before the post mortem as he makes no mention of any removals, or gives any hint of removals, he simply answers a direct question with a direct answer.

Obviously you are now about to suggest its not 7 minutes but the original 5, plus some.



Finally yesterday again post #140

His later experiment showed it took an expert 3.30 mins to remove a uterus. How much extra time would have been to be added to that to remove the left kidney the most difficult one of the two kidneys, at least the same time again I would suggest. So add 7 mins to 5 mins and that makes 12 mins, and there is not a 12 min window of opportunity anywhere to be found.

We now have a full blown 12 minutes required, however it is very clear to see how you developed this from the quotes I have posted.

Given that 4 days ago, indeed until yesterday, you were claiming the full procedure took seven minutes, it is apparent that it is not a long held belief it took 12 minutes to complete the procedure.

Trevor I respectfully suggest this stops, its not very good, nor does it portray you in a good light.

The answer is it is not slanted.

Did I invent the witness Lawende?

It is bias and slanted.

Of course not, however his timing is an estimate and we are dealing in a few minutes either way.

Did I alter the witness timings?

They are estimates, you treat them as if they are more than that.

Did I wrongly quote Dr Brown when he says anatomical knowledge was used?

It is one professionals view, other disagreed.
Has Lynn as said surely he is referring to the kidney, which MAY show some knowledge; Brown does not say the removal of the uterus shows any skill at all.

Did I wrongly quote Dr Brown who said that it would have taken 5 minutes to murder and mutilate as he found the body?

Until yesterday you were not accepting the 5 minutes, now you say he means just the throat cutting, facial nicks and the opening of the body cavity is included in that time
Your reason for this is somewhat suspect to say the least, The organ removal is now extra on top.

Was I responsible for the 12 hour gap before the post mortem was carried out and whatever did or didnt happen during that time window?

What a strange question?

Not sure how that relates to any bias you may show.


.

You may not like it, you may not accept it, but that is the reality and its not going to go away.

1. It's not about liking it, the idea is just not realistic.
2. I would be prepared to consider it, maybe accept it, if it were backed by some facts.
3. Of course it won't go away, because you keep repeating it.
4. And just because you repeat it does not mean it is real.



Some closing thoughts and questions

Trevor why do you continue to say Brown conducted an experiment?
It was not a valid experiment by any stretch of the imagination, it just suggested what a trained individual could do.


Several questions have been neatly ignored, by either raising other points or side stepping.

Firstly the use of the organs for medical research.

To prove that these organs were being used in 1888 for "medical research" would strengthen the argument, and it should not be that difficult, but it is clear there is no intention of doing so, why?

Neither have you given an explanation why someone would take the organs, against the law, for no financial gain .


There is an unfortunate causality here, and that is that some of the issues you raise do deserved to be looked at, but this approach means that such items can and do get lost, which is a great shame.



yours


Steve

[Karl]

Hello Karl. Thanks.

"Include Catherine Eddowes in what, exactly? Among victims traditionally believed, but not actually killed by Jack the Ripper?"

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

I am open to suggestions, of course, but is it the facial mutilation which is the reason you dismiss Eddowes? If so, I agree it might imply a somewhat different psychological motive. Attacks on genitals and reproductive organs is common enough where the motive is misogynistic, but facial disfiguration is often (though not always) done when killer(s) and victim knew each other.

[Karl]

Beat me to the punch, Columbo!

Why is it so unfathomable for people to accept that a small group of women, in a small geographical area, over a short period of time, were all horribly butchered by the same disturbed person?

There were many other brutal murders, too, in the same region and the same time period, which were never attributed to Jack the Ripper. Not just the torso victims, but others as well. Notably the Pinchin Street murder victim in September 1889, which also displayed a mutilated abdominal region, but which was still not tied to the Ripper murders.

It's not like mutilations are so rare that only one person could possibly perpetrate them all. And the mutilations of the previous victims had focused mainly on the reproductive organs, with Eddowes having her face slashed and a kidney removed in addition, whereas with MJK it seemed the inverse: that rather than being the main focus, the reproductive organs were mangled in addition to the rest.

[lynn cates]

Why?

Hello Harry.

"Why is it so unfathomable for people to accept that a small group of women, in a small geographical area, over a short period of time, were all horribly butchered by the same disturbed person?"

Because a handful of us ACTUALLY do a bit of investigating.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

yup

Hello Karl. Thanks.

"Include Catherine Eddowes in what, exactly? Among victims traditionally believed, but not actually killed by Jack the Ripper?"

Quite.

Cheers.
LC

[Harry D]

I never understood why people think MJK is a copycat murder. It went beyond just taking out a few organs and cuts on the face. Why the extreme mutilation when it wasn't needed?

Columbo

Beat me to the punch, Columbo!

Why is it so unfathomable for people to accept that a small group of women, in a small geographical area, over a short period of time, were all horribly butchered by the same disturbed person?